linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/15] dmaengine: dw: rename masters to reflect actual topology

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160125122347.GM6588@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:23:47 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc:	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
	Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] dmaengine: dw: rename masters to reflect actual
 topology

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:38:57PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:

> > This is patch 3 of a series but I don't have anything else in the
> > series.  What is going on with the rest of the series - what are the
> > dependencies and so on?

> I give up.  Seriously, this is impossible.  If I don't include everybody
> in the slightest way related to any patch in the series, I get
> complaints that patches are missing.  If I do, the lists reject it all
> due to too many recipients.  What the hell am I supposed to do?

You should normally include at least the subsystem maintainers in at
least the cover letter and cover the dependencies there.  Think about
how this is going to work: if you don't give us any information on
what's going on with dependencies then we can't tell how to handle the
patches - do we need to apply them, only review them or what?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)